Database from the study investigating whether experiencing fair versus unfair treatment influences allocation decisions toward an uninvolved next participant, and whether this effect depends on the perceived similarity of the recipient. Participants first received Experimental Dollars from a previous participant under either a fair (50/50) or unfair (20/80) allocation. They then decided how to divide 100 Experimental Dollars between themselves and another participant who had not yet taken part in the study. Depending on the experimental condition, this next participant was described as similar to the respondent, dissimilar to the respondent, or unspecified. The public dataset also includes evaluations of the received allocation, evaluations of participants’ own allocation decision, emotional responses, and self-reports concerning the decision-making process.
The database includes 594 complete observations. There are no missing values in the variables included in the public dataset.
The following variables are included:
participant_id — anonymous participant identifier
gender — participant gender; 1 = female, 2 = male, 3 = other
age — participant age in years
group — experimental group; 1–6, representing the six cells of the 2 × 3 design
fairness — fairness condition; 1 = fair allocation (50/50), 2 = unfair allocation (20/80)
similarity — recipient similarity condition; 1 = similar, 2 = dissimilar, 3 = unknown
allocation_next_person — number of Experimental Dollars allocated to the next participant; 0–100
Evaluation of the received allocation
perceived_fairness_received — perceived fairness of the allocation received from the previous participant; 1–10 scale
Emotional responses to the received allocation
anger_received — anger
frustration_received — frustration
happiness_received — happiness
sadness_received — sadness
wronged_received — feeling of being wronged
satisfaction_received — satisfaction
(all measured on 1–10 scales)
Evaluation after participants’ own allocation decision
perceived_fairness_allocated — perceived fairness of one’s own allocation decision; 1–10 scale
Emotional responses after participants’ own allocation decision
anger_allocated — anger
frustration_allocated — frustration
happiness_allocated — happiness
sadness_allocated — sadness
wronged_allocated — feeling of being wronged
satisfaction_allocated — satisfaction
(all measured on 1–10 scales)
Self-reported decision-process variables
m1 — perceived influence of the previous participant’s decision; 1–10 scale
m2 — perceived counterfactual influence of the previous participant’s decision; 1–10 scale
m3 — importance of adhering to a 50/50 split; 1–10 scale
m4 — perceived entitlement to keep more than 50 Experimental Dollars; 1–10 scale
m5 — perceived acceptability of deviating from a 50/50 split; 1–10 scale
m6 — consideration of the impact on the next participant; 1–10 scale
m7 — consideration of the impact on one’s own remuneration; 1–10 scale
m8 — amount the next participant should receive in this situation; 0–100
m9 — amount most panelists would allocate to the next participant in this situation; 0–100
Hypothetical baseline allocation variables
n1 — amount the participant would allocate if they were the first person in the chain; 0–100
n2 — amount the next participant should receive in that hypothetical baseline situation; 0–100
n3 — amount most panelists would allocate in that hypothetical baseline situation; 0–100
Manipulation check variables
similarity_check — categorical manipulation check concerning the recipient description; 1 = similar, 2 = dissimilar, 3 = unknown
similarity_perception — perceived similarity of the recipient to the participant; 1–10 scale
The study employed a 2 × 3 between-subjects experimental design. Participants were assigned to one of six conditions crossing fairness of the received allocation (fair vs. unfair) with recipient similarity (similar vs. dissimilar vs. unknown). Participants were informed that a previous participant had divided 100 Experimental Dollars between themselves and the participant. In the fair condition, participants allegedly received 50 Experimental Dollars while the allocator kept 50. In the unfair condition, participants allegedly received 20 Experimental Dollars while the allocator kept 80. Participants then decided how to divide 100 Experimental Dollars between themselves and another participant who had not yet taken part in the study. Depending on condition, this next participant was described as similar to the participant, dissimilar to the participant, or not described in identity-related terms. After making this decision, participants evaluated both the received allocation and their own allocation, reported their emotional responses, and answered questions concerning the decision-making process.
(2026)
